blackbird
-
Posts
7,950 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by blackbird
-
-
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
1. It's clearly an opinion piece. You need to know the difference. It's from the "Canadian Action Party", which - whatever it is - presumedly would have no goal to try to be objective.
2. I agree that the distinction here is academic, which makes me wonder why they would drag the issue into general discussion. Wait, no I don't wonder: it's to exaggerate, exacerbate and misrepresent views to inflame people and make them hysterical rather than discuss real issues.
3. Ok... pure lies and anti-science. Your source is garbage and you are sucking it in and spreading it around worse. Your hypocrisy is evident, in that you are decrying the government's theoretical ideas on race as not being generally true... and yet spreading 100% false information.
Get in the game... the more you isolate yourself with fringe ideas that will never be accepted by the general population, the less influence you have...Thank you for your back-handed approval of the comment. I must be on the right track.
"lies and anti-science"??? Science requires proof. Do you have anything that proves man-made climate change is true; i.e. something that is proven by the scientific method? No, because it is just political bafflegab and has not been proven. There never has been any proof because the size of the earth and the complexity of the environment prevents such a thing from being replicated or proven.
-
1
-
-
This might be triggering to some; fasten your seat belt. But is must be said because it seems to be factual.
"Racism In Reverse: Trudeau Government Endorse “Critical Race Theory”
Racism In Reverse: Trudeau Government Endorse "Critical Race Theory" (capforcanada.com)
Quote
Should Anglophones be basking in glory of our unique status according to our government? Not quite, fellow patriots. What we have here is nothing short of systemic racism against Canadians with white skin.
Trudeau & Team claim that non-white hating “systemic racism” lies at the heart of our society. This race-oriented “cancer” is intrinsic among Canadian “peoplekind.”
Talk about the epitome of political hypocrisy. Media say nothing of the sort. In fact, the sole contribution of CBC, CTV, Globe & Mail and Toronto Star has been to bury the agenda.
A quick glance at the government of Canada’s recent anti-racism materials reveal the following:
“While assumptions and stereotypes about white people do exist, this is considered racial prejudice–not racism.”
A genius distinction, no? Can you believe this pseudo-intellectual clap-trap makes the grade according to academia and government? What the Anglo-bashers are pushing here is simple in conception: Racism against white Canadians is an impossibility.
Which so obviously makes racism an “exclusive” for every one else. Witness the fate of Anglophone Canada— shunned, excluded, maligned and racist-for-life.
Irony of ironies! Your know what these academic geniuses call this? Try “multiculturalism,” diversity, and gasp– social equality. Unquote
Now with the new Liberal cabinet appointing two environmental radicals to the ministries of Environment and Natural Resources, western Canada is in double trouble. First western Canada has the major part of the energy industry and this will now be under strong attack by the two newly-minted ministers who are radical environmentalists. Secondly, most people in western Canada, particularly Alberta and Saskatchewan, are white Anglophones.
These are two strikes against them in the liberal mind. First they are part of the oil and gas resource economy and second they are white Anglophones. Trudeau has created the worst monster in the history of Canada to cause division and threaten the livelihood of western Canadians and the general prosperity of Canada. The new word to fight the great evil monster of climate change is "transition", meaning of course to kill the oil and gas (fossil fuel) industry.
Never mind that there is no proof that greenhouse gas is driving climate change, no proof man is causing climate change, and no proof that man can do anything about it. It is a fact that water vapour (H2O) is a major driver of global warming and water vapour levels in the atmosphere varies widely. But the secular humanists hate mankind and believe man is the culprit by using oil and gas to live, work, and feed his family. Therefore the ideology of this Marxist liberal cabal is to kill the oil and gas industry and redistribute Canada's wealth to the third world countries to ostensibly fight climate change. Four billion dollars has now been committed to the third world under the claim of fighting climate change. How many houses could be built for Canadians or partially subsidized with four billions dollars to alleviate the housing shortage. How many water treatment plants could be build on native communities to get them off boil water advisories with a fraction of that money?
-
On 10/22/2021 at 10:11 AM, Michael Hardner said:
He *seems to be saying "in the 21st century" what once was a communist is today a progressive... well... ok... but then a Bernier voter is a Nazi, if we're just mapping the political spectrum between eras right ? Or ???
There is an interesting book "Why Nazism was Socialism and Why Socialism is Totalitarian" by George Reisman available on Amazon. Fascism, Socialism, and Communism are all evil ideologies which destroy human rights and fundamental freedom. A heathen or pagan country is always in danger of drifting into one of those ideological systems because it has no solid foundation; it is building on sand.
"24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it." Matthew 7:24-27 KJB
People or a nations which have not built their belief system and life on the solid foundation of God and his word are open to the powers of darkness which are constantly at work to deceive mankind to follow them and their ideologies. How often in history have we seen this happen. We have all kinds of cults, some of clearly a religious nature and others of a secular humanist or worldly nature.
-
On 10/22/2021 at 9:47 AM, TreeBeard said:
You think the world is controlled by Satan, and yet you think it’s a periphery issue?
Shouldn’t that be the most important issue ever?
You are correct to a degree, but I would add many dispute the existence of the Biblical God and his creation of the universe and mankind and his involvement with mankind in the way the Bible describes. So that issue should be the most important. But it is difficult to say absolutely what is the most important issue ever. If one does not believe in the Biblical God, then that is a stumbling block and major issue too. There is a video of a 1 hour 47 minute debate between the famous atheist, Richard Dawkins and John Lennox, which you may find interesting.
Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox | The God Delusion Debate - Bing video
-
Anyone who wants to know what God thinks of so-call progressive governments and radical activist's ideology needs to get the book "Progressive Evil: How Radicals Are Redefining America's Rights, Institutions, and Ideals, Making Her Globally Irrelevant for the End Times" Format Kindle Whether one wants to know or not what God thinks, God still holds us accountable for what we believe and do.
Available on Amazon as a kindle book for $9.99 or soft cover for $24.07.
"20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!" Isaiah 5:20, 21 King James Bible
"Interestingly, the Bible makes no argument for the existence of God. Instead, the Bible assumes God’s existence from the very first few words, “In the beginning, God…” The biblical writers did not feel a need, apparently, to offer arguments for the existence of God. To deny the existence of God is foolish (Psalm 14:1).
Yet, sadly, many in our day do deny the existence of God. Some deny his existence because they do not want to be accountable to God, and others because they have a difficult time understanding how God can exist and the world be so broken.
Even so, the Psalmist was right, theism is rational, and to deny God is not. In this post we will briefly visit many rational arguments for the existence of God." Is God Real? 17 Existence Of God Arguments (Proof Of God) (biblereasons.com)
To the non-believer I would say there are many websites that go into this and refute the claims of atheists and show how terribly wrong they are. There are even debates on youtube between the famous atheist Richard Dawkins and professor John Lennox, which you may find interesting.
Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox | The God Delusion Debate - Bing video
-
10 hours ago, TreeBeard said:
You think the world is controlled by Satan, and yet you think it’s a periphery issue?
Shouldn’t that be the most important issue ever?
Of course! Everyone has beliefs.
What about the causes of disease? Certainly the bible doesn’t say anything about germs causing disease. It mentions disease being the results of sin. But we now know, through the same scientific method as we know about evolution, that diseases are caused by germs.
Why, if Satan was controlling science, would he have given us germ theory…. Should we be thanking Satan for that? Thanks you Satan for saving countless millions of lives and alleviating suffering by allowing us to discover Germ Theory.
Couldn’t the same thing be said of people who believe the bible to be true?
Well I guess Creation versus the Theory of Evolution is not a periphery issue, but some people are just not open to anything. I wouldn't say it is the most important issue ever. The question of where one is heading is pretty important; heaven or hell.
I'm not sure I said Satan was controlling science. He is a dominant force in the world system. I can't say he controls things like science. That doesn't sound like the correct way to look at it. He does seem to control much of the world's thinking though. But God is greater and God can convince anyone of anything if he so chooses to do so. You could download a book called "Satan" by Lewis Sperry Chafer on Amazon. The kindle version is not too expensive. That will tell you probably more than you want to know but you will learn an incredible amount if you take it in.
I could tell you a little about Satan, his origin and goal. He was one of God's most beautiful angels in heaven in the distant past. There is a common belief he is an ugly being with horns or some other grotesque figure. But this is not correct.
"15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. 18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. 19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more." Ezekiel 28:15-18 KJB
There is information about him if you put "Satan origin" or similar wording in a search window. He is quite willing to do anything to achieve his goal to be like the most high, God. He has most of the world deceived into believing he doesn't even exist. That allows him to work on his agenda. I will let you dig into it. Let me know what you find out.
I am not sure what you meant with the last line, "couldn't the same thing be said of people who believe the bible to be true?"
-
2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:
If we’re to take Genesis literally, clearly that throws out anything like evolution theory.
But you would agree that evolution is a completely mainstream idea and the basis of almost all biological science, correct?
What other branches of science don’t conform to the bible and should be tossed out?
Bible believers don't have much control over what the non-believing world does and evolution is taught in the public schools systems, probably practically everywhere. It is not the job of Bible believers or churches to change the world system which is basically under the control of Satan. The main thing for Bible believers and churches is to share the gospel. I don't think a lot of energy should be wasted on trying to change the world's belief system on those periphery issues. Not likely going to convince anyone who doesn't believe the Bible. I'm not sure what you believe. Do you have any beliefs?
The only thing offhand I can think of that would not conform to the Bible is the old earth theories which claim the earth is millions or hundreds of millions of years old. A well-known Bible theologian has estimated the age of the earth at around six to ten thousand years I believe, although there is no precise age given or known. The apparent old age of earth is explained by viewing it as having been created with an apparent old age at the time of creation, a supernatural event. People who do not believe in a God of the Bible who has supernatural, infinite power would likely believe whatever the world tells them.
-
15 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:
Jesus said he did not come to change the Law. Is there passages in the New Testament that you can point to that changes the Sabbath?
Colossians 2:16
“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:”
King James Version (KJV)Also see:
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:
Maybe a better question would be “how do you know what to take in the bible literally and what not to”?
You take Genesis literally.
Do you take literally that you shouldn’t work on the Sabbath and those who do should be put to death?
If you don’t take this literally, why not?
Exodus 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
Good question. The answer for me is I have been blessed to have been exposed to dispensational theology beginning through a Minister at a church I attended. Then books and articles on the internet on the dispensations. This divides the Bible into different ages or dispensations. The Old Testament, which you quoted, only applies to the nation of Israel at that time or age in history. The church age began in the New Testament age or age of grace. The beginning of the Church age is described in the beginning of the book of Acts. Therefore the Church is not under the Old Testament laws and commandment given to Israel in the first five books of the Bible. Although the ten commandments for the most part are universally accepted as applicable today, perhaps because their principles are re-stated in the New Testament in some ways. In regard to the sabbath laws, that was strictly directed to the nation of Israel in Old Testament times and does not apply to the Church today. But the principle of a day of rest of one day in seven is a universal principle because God rested on the seventh day after he created everything. We recognize Sunday as the day of rest, but it is not a Biblical commandment. Perhaps one studying the Bible might realize the Church started in the New Testament era, but there are many different interpretations of the Bible. That is why there are so many different denominations, although most Protestant denominations still agree on some of the basic teachings. For more information on dispensational theology, you can Google it as well as read this article:
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, French Patriot said:
How, when and by who were dinosaurs debunked?
Is the talking serpent in Eden real or metaphors or something else?
That serpent was prophesied to be with us forever but few serpents are talking.
We should let the Nobel people know. This deserves a prize.
Regards
DL
Nobody denies dinosaurs existed. So that is a phony claim. A talking serpent could well have happened. As I said these events are supernatural in nature. If you don't believe in the supernatural, there's not much anyone can say. You have a mental block.
-
15 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:
Should everything in the bible be taken literally?
The Bible is a book which originated from God and gives an account of many supernatural events. Some things are written in an obvious way to be metaphorical. Others things are actual accounts of supernatural events. There are many people who interpret things in the Bible that are not meant to be taken metaphorically.
"I never like the question, “Do you take the Bible literally?” It comes up with some frequency, and it deserves a response. But I think it’s an ambiguous—and, therefore, confusing—question, making it awkward to answer.
Clearly, even those of us with a high view of Scripture don’t take everything literally. Jesus is the “door,” but He’s not made of wood. We are the “branches,” but we’re not sprouting leaves.
On the other hand, we do take seriously accounts others find fanciful and far-fetched: a man made from mud (Adam), loaves and fishes miraculously multiplied, vivified corpses rising from graves, etc.
A short “yes” or “no” response to the “Do you take the Bible literally?” question, then, would not be helpful. Neither answer gives the full picture. In fact, I think it’s the wrong question since frequently something else is driving the query."
-
1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:
Do you find that the Theory of Evolution is incompatible with a god creating the universe?
Yes. Genesis ch.1 describes how God created everything is six days. This is meant to be taken literally. There is nothing there to indicate otherwise. "31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. " Genesis 1:31 KJV The creation event was a supernatural event.
The Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory written by someone who rejected the Biblical account and came up with a theory which many have debunked and rejected as false.
-
6 minutes ago, dialamah said:
I dunno if you call yourself Christian - I don't want to assume based on a few posts - but this makes Christianity appealing. Among other things that I dislike about religion (not just Christianity) is the exclusion so many practice. If there is a God who loves his creation, it doesn't make sense that he'd use them based on denomination. Judging them based on their actions of good/evil makes sense, but good people exist everywhere, not just in a single Church.
Anyway, I like what you said there.
According to the Bible, we are all fallen sinners and need to be born again. This is not "religion"; it is just Biblical truth. Religion will not save you. Only Jesus saves because he paid the price for our sins on the cross when he shed his blood for an atonement. We are saved only if we accept that atonement as our own, i.e. accept Jesus as our personal Savior. Until then one is separated from God for eternity because of his fallen corrupt nature. Nobody can earn heaven or salvation. It is a gift from God.
-
8 hours ago, Dowell said:
You are clearly mistaken, once again. Love respect compassion, basically being good citizens, or good children of God if you prefer are what Jesus is looking for. Keeping the good, rejecting the bad.
I have news for you. The verses I gave you show you cannot love, respect, have compassion, or become a good citizen as far as God's standards are concerned. You are born with a fallen corrupt nature and have basically a corrupt heart. Nothing you do will meet God's approval or standards unless you are born again and translated into the kingdom of his dear Son. This is a spiritual birth and is accomplished by God the Holy Spirit. That is the naked truth my friend.
Only Jesus Christ can save you. You cannot save yourself no matter how hard you try. I pointed the verses out that show that but so far you refuse to listen. I would humbly suggest you read the gospel of John carefully and take heed while you still have time. Also the epistles especially the Epistle to the Romans. "salvation cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God".
What the Bible says about Corruption of the Human Heart (bibletools.org)
"6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. 7 And there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee: for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us, because of our iniquities. " Isaiah 64:6, 7 KJB
-
8 hours ago, Dowell said:
I assume that you are familiar with the parable of the wheat and tares. If you care for, respect and share with others, you are wheat. If you have no compassion for others, and berate them, you are a tare. Jesus paid a ransom for all he calls His own. Matthew 25:31-46 shows how He decides which you are.
"5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; " Titus 3:5 KJV You are clearly claiming one can work his way to heaven. This is completely contrary to this verse here I just quoted and the other verses I quoted a few hours ago. This verse in Titus is talking about the new birth and states clearly it is "not by works of righteousness". You either accept God's ordained way of salvation or your own false way of trying to work your way to heaven, which God clearly rejects. May the peace of God be with you in your decision.
-
1 hour ago, Dowell said:
Your problem is that you try to cut Jesus' word into little pieces and say this piece is for those people, and this one for those. That is fundamentally untrue. You can't limit God. His word is for all His children who ever existed. Your mind has clearly gone to some strange place.
So how do you reconcile these verses with the verses and comments I gave you 2 hours ago about salvation by faith and not by works. You claimed the verses you quoted in Matthew prove your claim that they are mandatory to obey to be a sheep and not a goat. I showed you how that could not be the correct interpretation because of what it says in the gospel of John and the Epistles of Ephesians and Romans that salvation is entirely by faith in Christ. So you have a sharp contradiction. Either salvation (eternal life) is by following the chapters in Matthew we talked about or salvation is by faith in Christ as stated in the Scriptures I gave you. How do you explain it? It is incumbent upon you to answer the discrepancy in your interpretation. I explained this in depth 2 hours ago.
-
8 hours ago, Dowell said:
I assume that you are familiar with the parable of the wheat and tares. If you care for, respect and share with others, you are wheat. If you have no compassion for others, and berate them, you are a tare. Jesus paid a ransom for all he calls His own. Matthew 25:31-46 shows how He decides which you are.
"31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me." Matthew 25:31-46 KJV
So according to your interpretation, one must be judged as a sheep and not a goat. And to achieve that, he must have done everything stated in verses 35, 36 as stated in the verses above. This you must admit makes salvation dependent on your having followed these verses, or in other words, your good works. How do you reconcile that interpretation with what Jesus said in the gospel of John? "16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16 KJV or " 36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. " John 3:36 KJV " 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians ch2:8,9 KJV
Clearly, Jesus said salvation is by faith, not by works. Paul's epistle to the Romans makes this crystal clear.
"16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith." Romans 1:16, 17 KJV
"22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; " Romans 3:22, 23 KJV
Again the Apostle Paul says clearly salvation is by faith. He also points out we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God. Therefore how do you reconcile your claims about Matthew ch25 that one must keep those commands to be a sheep and not a goat? If Paul says in Romans we have all sinned and even as sinners, we are saved by faith, that kind of contradicts your interpretation of Matthew ch5, 6, and 7 and ch.25 where you claim one must keep those commands in order to be saved. Both interpretations can't be correct. You are either saved by works according to your interpretation or by faith as Jesus said in the gospel of John and Paul said in Ephesians and the epistle to the Romans. Nobody can get into heaven by their own efforts or works. Paul makes this clear when he says we are all sinners. That is why Christ died and shed his blood. He shed his blood as an atonement for lost sinners. That is the only basis of receiving forgiveness from God and we receive salvation when we believe he died for us personally. One cannot work his way to heaven.
"1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:" Romans 5:1 KJV
-
2 hours ago, Dowell said:
I assume that you are familiar with the parable of the wheat and tares. If you care for, respect and share with others, you are wheat. If you have no compassion for others, and berate them, you are a tare. Jesus paid a ransom for all he calls His own. Matthew 25:31-46 shows how He decides which you are.
The fundamental problem you have is in thinking chapters 5, 6, and 7 refer to Christians or the Church. If you examine those chapters you will see Jesus is referring to the future Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven has not arrived yet. It is a future kingdom which Christ will establish on earth. Therefore what Jesus is describing is the way people will act in the Kingdom of Heaven. But they obviously could not do it on human power because according to the Bible everyone has a fallen, evil heart. It would take a supernatural power from God to achieve. If you read those chapters carefully you will have to admit nobody keeps those commands. So there has to be a better explanation for what those chapters mean.
Those are the way it will be in the future Kingdom of Heaven. If you say those requirements apply to everyone today, you will find that nobody can achieve those standards. They will fail. So again, how will you get into heaven if you set those requirements as the determining factor as to to who is the wheat and who is the tares today? Read those chapters and tell me. Chapter 5 vs 3 says:
"3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." KJVVery clearly it says the kingdom of heaven. So where is this kingdom of heaven being referred to in numerous verses? Do you know what the Kingdom of Heaven is?
So if a person keeps one of those commands such as has compassion for some others at certain times, but fails at other times, what happens to him? Where does he go? According to the way you have put it, a person must have been compassionate at all times and never failed to do this. Same with other commands in these chapters. What happens if someone has not kept all these commands 100% of the time?
-
On 10/18/2021 at 1:03 PM, Dowell said:
The context seems pretty clear to me, it is the word of God given to all of us. "for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." That is foundational. It is also the standard used to separate the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25.
Since you claim the Sermon on the Mount is a rule of life for the church (foundational is the way you put it), do you actually believe you or anyone is able to successfully keep the commands in the Sermon on the mount (Matthew 5, 6, and 7)? And if not, how can you or anyone else be saved?
-
9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
1. No, it's a concept I'm trying to explain to you: public space vs private space. Facebook's site is THEIR private space, just like a mall is and your backyard is.
2. Malls are called "public spaces" but they are not truly public. You can be asked for any reason.If you can find a legal finding that says otherwise, I would be glad to read it. Now Trudeau is calling for exactly what you are saying: government regulation of the internet. Only he wants to restrict the expression within that private space from what is posted today, and you want to expand it. But both you and Trudeau want to regulate private space.
Nothing wrong with it, except that philosophically it's not a conservative viewpoint.So tell me if social media forums are private space that nobody has any rights except the owner to control, how does government (Trudeau) have the right to censor what goes on it? Does government have more rights to determine what one says than private citizens?
In other words, do you somehow believe government has the right to censor private citizens comments?
-
1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:
What if it is only open to join for those who agree to the terms of use that you checked off when you signed up?
As I said, the terms of use often are just general statements, but are being abused by CBC and MSN News when they ban comments right and left that have nothing really to do with the terms of use.
-
On 10/14/2021 at 11:06 AM, dialamah said:
1. Nope. Just like a restaurant can refuse service to someone based on what they are wearing (or not wearing), or their behavior, so too can public sites decide who shall or shall not join or post. The right to enter a restaurant or post on a public website is actually a privilege granted by the owner and not an unassailable right.
2. I don't know what the poster said after the first line, or how it differed from the previous post, but the trend is for public sites to delete content/people who post misinformation. Opinion among readers and other posters may vary on what constitutes misinformation, but the site owner has the right to decide that.
3. Doesn't matter.
4. All media does that to some degree, whether it's left wing, right wing or centrist.
The CBC and MSN have guidelines but constantly delete or ban comments that have nothing to do with their guidelines. They just ban comments if they don't like the view point. This is a violation of the Charter of Rights. If it clearly said in the Guidelines you can't say such and such, ok then they could delete it because that was part of the agreement. But since the guidelines are usually very general and clearly do not specify what you can or cannot say, they are often over bearing in deleting or blocking comments. Now if you are a liberal or lefty, you will probably agree with them banning comments you disagree with. That is how the lefty mind works. Such forums are a waste of time.
-
4 minutes ago, dialamah said:
The definition of Freedom of Speech has to do with government not interfering with citizens expressing their views (except in some limited cases - such as inciting people to violence.)
Private entities have no obligation to let you say anything you want while on their premises or using their services.
For example, if I came into your Church - which is open to the public if it is like most Churches - and began telling everyone that there was no God, it was all a hoax, you or your pastor would have every right to toss me out; freedom of speech doesn't mean I can say anything I want anywhere I want.
I agree with you about going into a church or private group settings or private associations. I disagree when it is a public forum open to anyone to join and where political debate is ostensibly welcomed. Then the Charter of Rights applies.
-
2 minutes ago, Dowell said:
Some of the people who were born here proved to be criminals and terrorists, which proves there is no difference.
There is a big difference. The difference is we have no choice with people who are born here and government does have a choice about who they allow to immigrate. We are a country with a border and an immigration system. We are not a country with no borders and open to the world to walk in. Not sure where you got that idea, but it is incorrect.
Understanding The Weather (extracted from) Privilege and Critical Race Theory
in Health, Science and Technology
Posted · Edited by blackbird
So you are unable to provide any proof that man-made climate change is real. No surprise. What I expected. CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere, but that doesn't prove man-made CO2 causes climate change because climate has always changed. In fact the climate was just as warm or warmer 2000 years ago in the Roman Warming Period and then in the Middle Ages in that warming period that lasted for several hundred years. The fact is water vapour (H2O) is a significant part of the atmosphere and also causes global warming but that is not mentioned because it doesn't fit the narrative of those who want to blame mankind for GW. Graphs demonstrate the rising temperature has not occurred evenly with the increase of CO2. The correlation is not really clear plus just because something happens at the same time as temperature increases does not prove that is what caused it. The stock market went up also at times but it doesn't prove the stock market caused GW.
quote
The now-infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph (Figure 5) produced by Michael Mann (Penn State University) and co-authors was the lynchpin of the AGW movement. The IPCC used the graph in the Summary for Policy Makers in their Third Assessment Report (2001). It was very influential. The graph was exposed as fraudulent; it ‘erased’ the Medieval Warm Period from the temperature record, and worse.52 Mann even sued a critic, lost, and then refused to pay the court-ordered costs. Underlining how corrupt climate science has become, instead of being disgraced, Mann was awarded the 2019 Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement! Unquote
"Figure 5. The fraudulent ‘hockey stick’ graph where the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age have been erased, giving the false impression of a thousand years of stability prior to radical recent warming.53"
A biblical and scientific approach to climate change - creation.com
Trying to equate smoking causes cancer with man-made climate change is a huge stretch because cancer from smoking was easily proven by statistics and damage to the lungs where lung cancer occurs. There is no similarity with man-made climate change. There have been many fraudulent claims on the subject of climate change which have later turned out to be false. Examples would be disappearance of the artic ice caps, disappearance of polar bears, the UN warning in 1989 that life on earth would be catastrophic by the year 2000 with major flooding and loss of islands. Never happened. Yet the UN IPCC is believed as the last word on climate change. Politicians like Trudeau and many others got on the bandwagon, without having a clue of science to do with it, because it is a political cash cow for them. Much of the world has been deceived into believing all the lies and deception around the subject.
Trudeau left this morning on his jet to fly around Europe for six days, wining and dining, and hob knobbing with the liberal elites of Europe as they discuss how they are going to save us all and save the planet from the boggy man of man-made climate change. I assume his right hand environmental climate change radical will be going to the climate conference too on the taxpayer dime.
Note the Roman Warming Period, 2000 years ago, and the MIddle Ages Warming Period were strangely left out of the famous hockey stick graph. I wonder why.